Points

Content count

Popular Content

I'm not a Kennedy fan, but I have to side with him on this one. What the basketball and volleyball athletes, coaches and the majority of their fans want, they should get. It should not be dictated by the management at the Ralph. (yes, I believe that is where it is coming from, not the Engelstad family) I also support Kennedy's efforts to bolster the new logo. Nothing sickens me more than great divide among our fanbase over the nickname which has been greatly enabled by the management of the Ralph who continue to do everything they can to keep the Sioux name front and center. They have succeeded in keeping the hockey fanbase Sioux fans while every other sport has moved on and identifies as Fighting Hawks. I was as staunch a supporter of the Sioux nickname as anyone, and always will be. But you know what? I can't change what has happened. I can't change the minds of those who somehow thought the name was offensive, while most of us thought it was honorable. I can choose to live in the past and be somewhat unfulfilled when our teams are introduced as the Fighting Hawks, or I can choose to embrace it and move on with my life and find solace in supporting the university that I love.

That's your take or are you just trying to stir the pot again?
Kennedy and UND proposed how they would like to see the court redone since the whole building is done for the benefit of UND athletics (per signed contract). He included supporting documentation showing that the Athletic Director, Operations, Marketing and every head coach who plays in the facility also wanted to see that. On top of that, he included actual reasons why putting the logo at center court helps them and how not having it there could be harmful. The response was "too bad, we already approved what we wanted even though we know you don't support it". No reason given other than the preference of one person because well, I guess she just doesn't like the logo (but remember the Herald said it had nothing to do with the nickname!!).
On top of that, people, including Jody Hodgson, Jeff Cooper (Engelstad Foundation Trustee) and James Waddoups (attorney who has worked with the Engelstads), spent 10 months coming up with a revised framework for the Usage Agreement and the REA Board promptly rejected it.
Yeah, Kennedy, standing up for his athletic department and operating in their best interests of the University he runs is what blew this out of proportion, not the person who decided they didn't like a logo and responded by running to the local paper to get their side of the story out and make all of this public.
For years people complained about not having a President who actually stood up for things, now that's all people can complain about.

Agree.
Every successful college sports program is intensely branded. Its not easy to do but It’s critical for recruiting, monetization, and winning. The most important thing about the logo/mascot is that it’s incorporated into the overall program brand.
What the logo actually is, is far less important,
Penguins sounds stupid until they reel off championships, after that it’s a brand and next thing you know hard nosed Steeler fans are walking around with a formal chicken on their shirts and it looks fine.
Golden Knights was a little cheesy until now. Oilers, meat Packers, Crimson algae, Buckeye nuts, generic animals like Jayhawks, Eagles, Gators, Bruins, Bears, Longhorns, and Ducks...all goofy until they kick your a$$.
Those schools and teams are the brand, the logos are secondary but need to be embraced and incorporated
Other teams feared North Dakota, not the Sioux. They don’t care what our logo is or was, but they do care about playing a great hockey program.
The more we bitch the more it hurts our brand. As a recruit it would be weird going somewhere where fans are so neurotic they seem hate the mascot on your jersey more than they like the team.
1/2 these kids in college are probably sick of a bunch of grumpy old men screaming ‘Sioux’ and ‘get off my lawn’. I guarantee the players get sick of it, they never played for the Sioux and are here because UND, not the Sioux, gives them a shot at glory and the NHL. Allow them to be proud of the logo, not be embarrassed by it
I didn’t like it at first but my brain trumped my vicarious memories, and I decided I like winning a helluva lot more than nostalgia. Life is about change.
Put the damn Hawk on the floor and hats and embrace it, buy a keychain. We can modify how it looks later if we want, it’s done all the time. Build the brand, sell the shirts, pay the bills, recruit the players, win the games, have fun; repeat.

It's actually nothing like that. Especially with a contract that says the REA is supposed to operate with the best interests of UND.
I find it hilariously hypocritical, although not surprising, you call the people who actually play for the teams represented by the logo Snowflakes. It is apparent you're a child in this situation and are crying because it's not what you want.

The Herald was against UND accepting Engelstad money before it was for it. Conversely, the Engelstads treated the news media --the Herald in particular -- like the plague until a few days ago.
The Herald was for removing all traces of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo before it was against it.
The Herald didn't give a < bleep > about UND women's hockey until Kennedy cut it.
The Herald was all for a competent, shake-it-up UND president until he was too competent, and got a look somewhere else.
Herald gonna Herald.

Was I happy on August 5, 2005? No. I knew what was coming: 2012.
Was I happy that something generic (bird) was the choice? No, but I could see it coming.
Did I figure generic begets generic when it comes to a logo? Yes. Was I happy? No.
All that said, when I hear "Fighting Hawks" or see the new logo I'm happy.
Why?
No more nonsensical news stories about how the old name causes this, that, or the other.
No more grandstanding "protesters" when we go on the road.
No more having to listen to pontifications by Jeanotte-heads.
No more NCAA threats.
So, amongst all that unhappy, I found my happy in this outcome.
So yeah, I see that name and log and I smile because I found happy in unhappy.

This silo approach to funding athletics you speak of is a weird way to run a ship. I think the disconnect is that most of us on here see the Athletic Department as a single entity made up of individual programs -- some big and some small -- very few lucrative and most hemorrhaging cash. What many of us don't see and what we don't believe in is an everyone-for-themselves approach. That kind of mindset may be awesome for the lucrative program(s) but does nothing to move the needle forward for the Athletic Department as a whole, and by extension, the University. This is especially true when your power program is a niche program followed mostly by a vast minority of folks in nine or 10 states on the U.S. northern tier. It's like Johns Hopkins lacrosse rolling off umpteen national championships in a row -- if a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to .... Oh hell, you get the point.
EDIT: My point is that many of us who tend to argue your points aren't satisfied with JUST the hockey team doing well. We want the hockey team and as many other programs as possible to do well, especially in sports that will garner more press nationally, such as football and basketball. Look at how Loyola Chicago blew up in this year's Big Dance.

I can't stand the logo and nickname (too generic for me), but regardless of that outcome. It is in the best interest of the U to embrace a common marketing strategy. I don't see any issues with Kennedy's request, and his comments jive with the opinions of students/athletes I have had interactions with. Shame on the Herald for subpar reporting and providing a venue for the REA folks to spew garbage.

Lots of good discussion, my only hope is that most of the general public will look into some of the details of this and not just base their opinion off headlines (which we know how the Herald is trying to frame it).
If I was trying to summarize, would this be fair:
The way the current contract is written, on a yearly basis, the revenue split favors the REA Foundation over UND. Kennedy wants to renegotiate better terms with REA Foundation, so that the split is more even. Kennedy is doing what he feels is best for UND, McGarry is doing what's best for the REA Foundation.
At the end of the day, I like that Kennedy tried to renegotiate better terms, but should have dropped it once it appeared it was going nowhere. It's obvious the intentions McGarry had by going to the Herald for a sit down. I personally don't think she looks good at all, but will win in the court of public opinion. I would even say that McGarry looks much worse than Kennedy, but ultimately she knows that won't matter (& I'll be in the minority that thinks that).
Here's where I'll be attacked. What's so disappointing to me, is I think Kennedy is a true leader that is (& will be great for UND). The problem is GF & UND seem to be even less willing to embrace change than most. They would rather have a complete zero in charge that doesn't change the status quo. I think the town and school still have a "D2" mentality. Anybody who tries to lead will be railroaded.
Edit: The last paragraph has to do with the other events Kennedy has been called out for since he started, not so much to this discussion.

Why is it easy for people on a message board to find information about who is on each organization, who votes, where money is coming and going but our LOCAL media doesn't even bother to do a little research? I would say our local media outlets have become very lazy in their reporting.

Wow....The REA and it's board decided to design the court how they wanted to instead of taking input from the UND President, Athletic Director and every coach who plays in the Betty because they didn't want the Fighting Hawk at center court. Kennedy calls them out and says they aren't acting in the best interest of the University of North Dakota, which puts them in violation of the governing documents of the relationship. There is also a small blurb about the Usage Agreement, reinforcing that it remains unsigned and there are disagreements on it from both sides. There was a negotiated framework presented to the REA board in February that they rejected even though Jody Hodgson and some others representing the REA helped put it together.
I guess there's no argument anymore on whether or not the REA is intentionally dragging their feet and intentionally not incorporating the new logo. And KEM's comments about it not being about the nickname seem to ring pretty hollow, especially considering JH relayed that she specifically stated she wanted to brand the floor of the BESC with the wordmark and not the logo. Not a good light shed on the REA or KEM, no wonder they went on the attack first. Assuming as soon as they heard about the open records request, they new they needed to do some damage control.
Kennedy also goes out of his way in every e-mail to express gratitude for the gifts give by the Engelstads.

You accuse UND-FB-FAN of stoking fan base division and then follow up by insulting the football and basketball programs and say deal with it.
Your recent posts position you as the poster child for driving fan base division.

He's not. Trust me, I've been on the receiving end of some pointed criticism from the man. He is passionate and demanding and wants nothing but the best for UND, within the external restrictions laid out before him. Never once have I walked out of a frank one-on-one with the man, feeling degraded, demoralized or that our encounter was anything short of professional. If you like the status quo, things may be uncomfortable for you, if you're a motivated go-getter with an entrepreneurial mindset, it's not exactly a cakewalk but it's much smoother.

Yes, hopefully the REA management will continue to operate the building past 2030. It's amazing to me that each year you go and attend your first hockey game it's like the arena is still new. If Ralph would have turned the arena over to the university after the building was completed I'm not very confident that it would look like it does. I doubt there would be any funds put away to keep it fresh and new. With a government entity handling the proceeds over the last 17 years that pool of money would have suffered that same fate as the Social Security Trust Fund. They'd most likely would have used all the funds to pay the salaries of professors who want the arena tore down.

No. They had the vote after hearing what Kennedy had to say (multiple times) ignoring what the President, Athletic Director, Coaches and multiple operations people stated was in the best interest of UND.
Kennedy had clearly expressed his point of view before March 28, when JH sent him an e-mail stating that KEM didn't want the logo.
Kennedy responded on 3/30 detailing he was disappointed in this and further reiterated that the logo at center court was in the best interest of UND and attaches further supporting documents. Bill Chaves also responds backing this stance. JH responded he would pass on the information.
JH sent an email on 4/20 saying that design work was in process but he thought the board was going to use the script instead of the logo regardless of whether it's actually in the best interest of UND and would contact him on 4/23 to discuss further (no final decision had yet been made).
Kennedy sends an e-mail to multiple people on 4/25 regarding JH's previous e-mail, stating his disappointment and furthering his stance that the REA is not following their mission of operating in the best interest of UND
On 4/27, someone from the Engelstad Foundation responds the decision has already been made. The attachment includes a document titled "Betty Court Design - April 26 2018", indicating that was the date the design was finalized.
Kennedy didn't go on any tirade after the final decision was made (or at least none that has been made public). If reminding KEM and the REA Board of Directors what their mission statement is pisses them off, then maybe it's time some of them are replaced. Tough to have a partnership when the entity who is supposed to be supporting another entity doesn't bother to listen in what ways they think the best way for that support to be employed is and instead operate on their own feelings.

This is another glaring example of how the way the Herald frames a narrative is what sticks. Having worked at the Herald and alongside these outstanding reporters, who are in the trenches everyday, I am mildy disappointed in two things: (1) UND's insistence to go passive on these things and just let the narrative hang out there and fester instead of challenging the assertions and correcting the record, and (2) the failure of the reporting staff to give the full picture of what actually is the case instead of leading with and only with the slice of the job that would garner the most outrage.
The "bartender/party planner (for president's wife =this element is the most fake newsiest of the whole thing) is a very small slice of the actual administrative assistant position at issue, probably 5 percent of this person's job, if that. This person's duties impacts the entire University in many ways when it comes to ceremonies, events and routine high-touch visits to campus. That said... when this person is performing these duties, mostly at The Ralph, it is to help cater to dignitaries (donors, political leaders, famous visitors, etc.) for the sole purpose of placing the best possible professional light on UND. Sure, these folks can get their own drinks and shrimpkabobs but why not extend a little class once in a while and do whatever possible to give the appearance of a first-class operation -- again when it's only less than 5 percent of a person's duties.
Oh, and BTW, it wasn't a new position, as has been asserted by many, rather it was a replacement hire after the previous person in this role retired after years of doing the exact same duties, in good times and bad, with no hint of concern by anyone.

One thing that I hope most people take from this story, is that at the end of the day, Kennedy was trying to do what's best for the University of North Dakota. His tactics or how he approached the situation clearly didn't work / could have been handled better, but he saw something in the contract or how things were being handled that was a red flag.
What's really frustrating, is to take a step forward as a University, they need a President with a vision who is willing to lead. It might not be popular at times, but I'd much rather have someone who's ambitious, then someone who would have looked over the contract, noticed a red flag and didn't say anything. It's much easier to sit back, not say anything and go along with their day. The problem for Kennedy is it appears there's too many who just want the status quo, would rather have him just bury his head.

I don’t have any idea what the true story is here but it should be pointed out that McGarry is also doing battle with UNLV, her alma mater, and has rescinded their $14m donation to the Med school there because the president was “pushed out.” I understand big donors have significant influence, and that college presidents and governing boards can all be very obtuse, but how much control and influence do we want non-elected individuals to have with state run institutions?
The fact that McGarry requested this interview tells me she intended to throw a grenade here, and hopes to get a certain result—-Kennedy gone, or Kennedy more agreeable to what she proposes.
Again, I don’t know much about Kennedy, or his abilities, but these tactics by McGarry seem pretty strong-armed. They really put Kennedy in a difficult position.
The Ralph donation wasn’t a contract with the devil, but UND certainly sold its soul to a certain extent, and it has to be somewhat frustrating for a college President not to have full control of its major sports—hockey, and men’s & womens b-ball.

You might be the most insulting, condescending, myopic, close-minded person in the history of siouxsports.com.....and that is saying a TON.
Still trying to figure out after 50 pages what you have contributed to this thread besides divisiveness and negativity.
Both sides are wrong here in my opinion, but it's debatable at least.
You just are awful at debating this topic and your true colors have been revealed.

So why is the agreement renewed annually if there is nothing to be renegotiated? And the original agreement is what is sitting on his desk, not the framework of an agreement that was negotiated over 10 months with management and members of the REA and its board, which the whole REA Board turned around and rejected. I also think KEM needs to look into where the revenue from the REA comes from and take a look at what the REA charges UND directly for. Safe to say a large portion of the revenues are tied to UND athletics either directly or indirectly.
Kris, you're absorbing all these costs with UND's money!! You personally have never contributed anything to REA, and the Engelstad Foundation is not making annual contributions to support the REA. It's not your money, it's money you are taking from UND that is being used to pay for everything.

"I'm not sure of many other places where the wishes of the athletic department are not the governing operative, whether the facility is owned or leased or not."
Like him or hate him, Kennedy has a valid point here.

That article, which needs to be pointed out was requested by the Engelstad's, seems like a whole lot of nothing. They are unhappy UND wants to renegotiate the revenue split, which seems like a reasonable request given the change in usage.

The Engelstad Foundation gets no contributions from REA, no ticket revenue. Other than 2 common board members, it has no connection with REA. It was funded from Ralph and his estate. It has net assets of $790 million for crying out loud. It could buy REA 10X over.
Honestly where did this totally baseless rumor come from?

Some of you amaze me. The impact on the community alone because of this one time donation can't be measured. I can say, as someone that doesn't live in Grand Forks, I've spent North of $10,000 since 2010 in Grand Forks that wouldn't have been spent without that building, and that's without attending a game the last two years (damn kids). How many more people are there like me? It's not strictly you blue bloods filling that building and the hotels each weekend. Without that hockey program, what does Grand Forks offer to outsiders that couldn't be found in any other mid size city in the Midwest? The only thing that's unique and an attraction is a hockey program that offers a better atmosphere than any pro game I've ever been to, and it's quite likely based solely on that building.
As far as other donors, I don't see anyone else ponying up over $100 million for anything, and even if they did, why would they want to? While Kennedy might be in the right, and at the end of the day a logo on the floor shouldn't matter, but you can't tell me that someone that spends that kind of money isn't going to want some kind of say no matter who they are, and the condescending response by Kennedy in the emails is going to give them pause, because if he's going to talk like that to someone that's spent that kind of money, he'll do it to anyone.
Finally, yes, North Dakota is in a budget crunch, that should have been foreseen, and it's not ridiculous to request a revisit to the revenue sharing agreement, but at the same time, the university has made some extremely questionable decisions in money allocation over the past several years when this budget shortfall could have been predicted. While this will blow up in Engelstad Foundations face, the university is going to have collateral damage from other donors because of Kennedy's arrogance. Seriously, he implied that he would sue a donor, you don't think that's not going to give other donors pause?

The KEM media tour continues.... http://www.valleynewslive.com/content/misc/Kris-Eng-482606541.html
The horror that UND has cut back on money the hockey team has gotten. It's almost like they are part of the athletic department and a University that faced significant cuts.
Then there is this gem:
So why is the agreement renewed annually if there is nothing to be renegotiated? And the original agreement is what is sitting on his desk, not the framework of an agreement that was negotiated over 10 months with management and members of the REA and its board, which the whole REA Board turned around and rejected. I also think KEM needs to look into where the revenue from the REA comes from and take a look at what the REA charges UND directly services provided. Safe to say a large portion of the revenues and cash flow that UND should jsut sit back and collect are tied to and generated by UND athletics either directly or indirectly.

The most important thing in all this isn't the logo at mid court at the Betty. It is Kennedy going to REA and telling them things that he would like the REA to do to benefit UND, then the REA basically telling him tough luck, we do what we want. And that being in direct violation to the contract they had having the REA doing things in the best interests of UND. If the REA is confused as to what the best interests of UND are, maybe one place to look is the President of UND telling you what they are!

Thats a very valid concern.
FB will be very pissed when the 48% Athletics / 52% REA goes to 8% Athletics / 92% financing committes to study the effects of nonbinary lesbian dance theory as viewed through the lens of social injustice perpetrated upon nonGmo fed vegan ..... hawks.
....and of course the associated building unnamed in honor of indecision.

Hey listen, everyone knows your disdain for the Summit/MVFC decision....
But the fact of the matter remains that it was the best business decision for UND to leave the Big Sky for the Summit/MVFC. Especially given the current budget climate.
Given all the variables, ANY smart business person worth a $h!t would have done the same thing.

REA was built to benefit and serve UND. UND does not exist to benefit and serve REA. I don't think the princess understands that.
And since the princess went out of her way to point out that Ralph graduated from UND, but that no one else in the family did, I think it is more than fair to question her loyalty and commitment to this fine institution that we all care about.
Kennedy is looking out for UND. Good for him.
And the princess should think long and hard about why her dad built this arena. It wasn't to make UND all about him. #getoveryourself

The old arena was far from a dump. It was what college hockey was back then and I imagine if they spent a little money on renovating it, it would still be a pretty nice venue to watch games. I remember going to games at that arena and just walking up to the arena got me excited. The way the visiting teams bus/players came in, the way the students waited in line to get in and the fact that some rich snob didn't yell at the students for standing.
Now don't get me wrong, the new REA is very very nice but to say the old REA was a dump is just completely false.

D1jv run? You realize UND plays at the same level, right? You are really showing your true colors towards "other" UND athletics; it's impossible for attitudes like this to ever actually help UND athletics.

Bottom line is the Ralph and the Betty were built for the sole purpose to host UND sporting events. They are the primary tenant. The intention of the gift was operate within the best interests of UND. So who decides what the best interests of UND are? A trustee on the board of the Englestad Foundation or the actual President of the University of North Dakota?

There are numerous examples for hockey taking precedence over other programs, and having the REA getting money from basketball and football and having options to plow it back into hockey facilities.
Cases in point: the hockey team getting a shiny state of the art new locker room when their old one was 15 years old with fb helping pay it, while the football team has to deal with one almost a century old. The REA had total control over that fiasco.
Hockey coaches are paid at the top of the line, while fb and mbb, especially assistants, aren’t paid squat, even at their levels. The REA can insist on paying hockey coaches top rate, but damn if they will insist on paying other coaches. The other coaches are held to a UND pride standpoint as far as their salaries, but not hockey. Didn’t see the REA squawking about a men’s B.B. assistant that took a USD job today that pays reportedly 50% more. After all, more than half of B-ball and f-ball money is run through the REA for what hockey minds want to do with it.
Fully support hockey, but don’t trust the REA Trust’s vision for the benefit of all UND athletics. The REA Trust is like the slum lord overseer for all sports but hockey.

These are questoins we should find the answers to and maybe add some more.
As supporters of UND, season ticket holders, alumni, employees, concered citizens, and etc. wouldn't it be good to understand how The Ralph relationship works????
I am an alumni, supporter, and season ticket holder in MH & FB, am concerned, and would like to know. They raise season ticket prices and where does that money go?
My understanding from the beginning was UND owned the land and always will.
Ralph Engelstad Arena Inc. or something close owns the improvements on the land till 2030 when UND will get them.
Evidentally, there is another entity in place a Engelstad Foundation.
There is a board of directors, are they only to the Ralph Engelsated Arena, Inc.????
Who is in charge of the Engelstad Foundation?
Where does the CC $ go?
Where does all the ticket money go? Concessions and so on ? 50/50 raffle, who has the gaming license, maybe alumni office?
How does the Engelstad Foundation get it's money and who decides where it goes, some GF Herald ink on UNLV got more than UND? Is this all money orginated from The Ralph?

Here's a hot take. The REA, frustrated that Kennedy was taking a harder line than they expected and fearful of the golden goose laying a couple fewer eggs, ran to the Herald with this story to test the waters of public opinion. What happens next will depend on the public's response. Either Kennedy will be hailed as a hero for bravely trying to right the ship by deftly renegotiating the one-sided REA contract albatross, OR the public will be outraged by Kennedy's cold-blooded assault on 'those wonderful Engelstads, who have done so much for UND and are (apparently) infallible and incapable of doing anything wrong.'

You're really grasping at straws if you're trying to use social media comments as some sort of scientific evidence to back up your claims, especially considering the majority making those comments never have given a penny to UND or attended.
Talk is cheap, people love to hear themselves complain and judging from the comments, apparently have no concern for actually accuracy while making those claims. When you see people's argument against spending $35K on a mascot (from private, donated funds) is they should instead use the money to bring back the $2MM/year black hole that was women's hockey, you can have them on your "side" all day long. Their opinion has no bearing on the actual situation or reality for that matter, but you can continue to count them in your "97%" since that apparently makes you feel good about yourself and stance that continues to be further and further in the rear view mirror.